News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

37a37a37

Re:Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @04:07PM (#24571357)
Of course my point was that they shouldn't be used in isolation - re-read my original comment, which states: "Furnish evidence or a solid argument for why he is wrong." It wasn't poorly expressed, and you are nitpicking. Though had I known you'd nitpick, I would have said: "Furnish evidence or a solid argument for why he is wrong in addition to it."
Re:Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @04:59AM (#24564687)
If: “The point is to get the person to actually supply real evidence instead of unfounded associations.” then say “That’s an assertion that you provided no evidence for. Do you have any evidence?” - writing “correlation is not causation” is to make yourself sound smart, not to ask for evidence, which can be done in a much clearer and less passive aggressive way by just straight up asking for it.
Re:Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @03:12AM (#24563933)
Repeat after me: saying "correlation is not causation" "slippery slope fallacy" or "survivorship bias" doesn't amount to an argument. They are thought-stopping words primarily used by midwits who think it makes them sound smart. I see this all the time on HN and it's annoying. Furnish evidence or a solid argument for why he is wrong, otherwise you're no better than him.